Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-17-2012, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

2) Parable of the Wicked Husandmen
Quote:
“Mark” 12. 1-9. “the allegory of the vineyard” aka the parable of the wicked husbandmen

The owner [god] of a vineyard [Israel] sends servants [the prophets] to the tenants [Jews] of the vineyard to collect rent. The Jews kill the prophets so god sends his son [JC] and the Jews kill him also. God destroys the tenants [Roman Jewish War] and gives the vineyard to others [non Jews and Christians].

This narrative is consistent with rabbinical narratives about what happened in the aftermath of 70 CE. Thus the gospel being originally written 75 - 85 CE is not unthinkable, possibly even 70 - 75 CE.

Quote:

According to Josephus, Vespasian confiscated all the lands of Judaea after the War of the Destruction. This would seemingly imply that all of Judaea became crown property ... http://books.google.com/books?id=eW4...nds%22&f=false

It is not at all logical to attempt to date gMark to 75-85 CE by a parable which appear to include events after c 70 CE.

You can only claim gMark was written AFTER c 70 CE.

Now, we have STRONGER evidence that gMark was most likely composed in the 2nd century.

The claim that Herod married his brother's wife is found Only Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.1 composed c 93 CE and it is also found in gMark 6.17.

The claim in Mark 6.24 that the daughter of Herodias asked for the head of John the Baptist is similar to a request by Tiberius for the HEAD of Herodias' Father in Antiquities 18.5.1.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.1

Quote:

So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

The John the Baptist story in gMark appears to be directly linked to Antiquities of the Jews 18.

The preponderance of evidence suggest that gMark is late or composed After the end of the 1st century.

stephan huller · 10-17-2012, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Herod had to import candidates for the high priesthood

1. Herod makes his 17-year-old brother-in-law, Aristobulus III, high priest, fearing that the Jews would appoint Aristobulus III "King of the Jews" in his place.
2. Herod deprived Jesus the son of Phabet, of the high priesthood,
3. and conferred that dignity on Simon of Boethus(BJ 15.9.3)
4. Simon, son of Boethus
5. Marthias, son of Theophilus
6. Joazar, son of Boethus
7. Eleazar, son of Boethus

According to a highly probable assumption, the Boethusians were associated with the members of the high-priestly family of Boethus.
Simon, son of Boethus from Alexandria - or, according to other sources[who?] Boethus himself -, was made a high priest about 25 or 24 B.C. by Herod the Great, in order that his marriage with Boethus's daughter Mariamne might not be regarded as a mésalliance.[clarification needed]
The family of Boethus produced the following high priests:

Simon, son of Boethus, or Boethus himself (24-5 BC)
Joazar, son of Boethus (4 BC and before 6 AD), unpopular and an advocate of compliance with the Roman census
Eleazar, son of Boethus (4-3 BC) independently attested in the Mandaean Sidra d-Yahia.
Simon Cantheras, son of Boethus (41-42 AD)
Elioneus, son of Simon Cantheras (43-44 AD)

Joshua, son of Gamaliel (64 AD), whose wife Martha belonged to the house[10]
The hatred of the Pharisees toward this high-priestly family is shown by the words of the tanna Abba Saul b. Baṭnit, who lived about the year 40 CE at Jerusalem. It must be especially noticed that "the house of Boethus" heads the list of the wicked and sinful priestly families enumerated by Abba.

All the above from Wikipedia. So the argument is that the Boethusians were brought from imported from Babylonia?

spin · 10-17-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Herod had to import candidates for the high priesthood

1. Herod makes his 17-year-old brother-in-law, Aristobulus III, high priest, fearing that the Jews would appoint Aristobulus III "King of the Jews" in his place.
2. Herod deprived Jesus the son of Phabet, of the high priesthood,
3. and conferred that dignity on Simon of Boethus(BJ 15.9.3)
4. Simon, son of Boethus
5. Marthias, son of Theophilus
6. Joazar, son of Boethus
7. Eleazar, son of Boethus

According to a highly probable assumption, the Boethusians were associated with the members of the high-priestly family of Boethus.
Simon, son of Boethus from Alexandria - or, according to other sources[who?] Boethus himself -, was made a high priest about 25 or 24 B.C. by Herod the Great, in order that his marriage with Boethus's daughter Mariamne might not be regarded as a mésalliance.[clarification needed]
The family of Boethus produced the following high priests:

Simon, son of Boethus, or Boethus himself (24-5 BC)
Joazar, son of Boethus (4 BC and before 6 AD), unpopular and an advocate of compliance with the Roman census
Eleazar, son of Boethus (4-3 BC) independently attested in the Mandaean Sidra d-Yahia.
Simon Cantheras, son of Boethus (41-42 AD)
Elioneus, son of Simon Cantheras (43-44 AD)

Joshua, son of Gamaliel (64 AD), whose wife Martha belonged to the house[10]
The hatred of the Pharisees toward this high-priestly family is shown by the words of the tanna Abba Saul b. Baṭnit, who lived about the year 40 CE at Jerusalem. It must be especially noticed that "the house of Boethus" heads the list of the wicked and sinful priestly families enumerated by Abba.

All the above from Wikipedia. So the argument is that the Boethusians were brought from imported from Babylonia?

Wot?

tanya · 10-17-2012, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But at this forum I would merely argue that Detering's position (and those who share it with him) that the gospel was written in the second century at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt simply doesn't fit this literary framework. The Sadducees had already disappeared. The only people holding on to this view were the Samaritans. This is indeed the most powerful follow up argument to the little apocalypse in chapter 13 of Mark that the text was written at the time of the destruction of the temple.

JW:
This is Literary Criticism so it's not going to be strong evidence for dating. Only Source Criticism could do that.

Regarding what Literary Criticism shows, this Thread:

Papias Smear, Change in sell Structure. Evidence for an Orig. 2nd Cent Gospel Part II

demonstrates that "Mark" is more likely later, than earlier.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

Paul?
You can furnish even one verse from Mark, that references text from one of the epistles?

:huh:

I fail to appreciate how any comment in this entire thread has illustrated:
a. "strong" evidence, or any evidence at all, for that matter;
b. that Mark was composed in the first century.

All I see is drivel. (use of the lexicon to describe synagogue, Joe, raises the level of scholarship on the forum? really?)

Yeah, "wot". That was instructive. Let's change one phoneme.

not. Yes, but due to peculiarity of English, modifying the consonant, ALSO changes the vowel, so, in fact, two phonemes changed. We call this "double talk".

:constern01:

stephan huller · 10-17-2012, 01:51 PM

spin,

I am wondering where you got the idea that Herod 'imported' his high priests? Are you referencing his appointment of Hananel as High Priest, a Babylonian Jew of a high-priestly family?

spin · 10-17-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

spin,

I am wondering where you got the idea that Herod 'imported' his high priests? Are you referencing his appointment of Hananel as High Priest, a Babylonian Jew of a high-priestly family?

And the family of Boethus from Alexandria. What happened to the native Judean stock? The Hasmonean line was only one of the 24 and the male line apparently died out in 37 BCE. The sons of Zadok themselves left Judea under Onias IV for Egypt during the Hellenistic crisis and set up the Jewish temple at Heliopolis, leaving a hole in Jerusalem eventually filled by Jonathan. I think the rump support of the Sadduqim died at the temple siege in 63 BCE after being exiled under Salome Alexandra with the brief apogee of the Pharisees. The priests threw in with Aristobulus II and died in the Pompey-led apocalypse, the last killed while at the altar. After Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus III, who was left in Judea who could stand at the altar, not to mention enter the holy of holies?

stephan huller · 10-17-2012, 08:40 PM

It's an interesting theory. I don't know that it proves the Sadducees disappeared. I know the Philosophumena claims that they settled near Mount Gerizim by third century.

stephan huller · 10-17-2012, 11:51 PM

FWIW here is the reference to the Sadducees continuing to live into the third century in Samaria:

Quote:

These, then, are the opinions even of the Pharisees. The Sadducees, however, are for abolishing fate, and they acknowledge that God does nothing that is wicked, nor exercises providence over (earthly concerns); but they contend that the choice between good and evil lies within the power of men. And they deny that there is a resurrection not only of flesh, but also they suppose that the soul does not continue after death. The soul they consider nothing but mere vitality, and that it is on account of this that man has been created. However, (they maintain) that the notion of the resurrection has been fully realized by the single circumstance, that we close our days after having left children upon earth. But (they still insist) that after death one expects to suffer nothing, either bad or good; for that there will be a dissolution both of soul and body, and that man passes into non-existence, similarly also with the material of the animal creation. But as regards whatever wickedness a man may have committed in life, provided he may have been reconciled to the injured party, he has been a gainer (by transgression), inasmuch as he has escaped the punishment (that otherwise would have been inflicted) by men. And whatever acquisitions a man may have made. and (in whatever respect), by becoming wealthy, he may have acquired distinction, he has so far been a gainer. But (they abide by their assertion), that God has no solicitude about the concerns of an individual here. And while the Pharisees are full of mutual affection, the Sadducees, on the other hand, are actuated by self-love. This sect had its stronghold especially in the region around Samaria. And these also adhere to the customs of the law, saying that one ought so to live, that he may conduct himself virtuously, and leave children behind him on earth. They do not, however, devote attention to prophets, but neither do they to any other sages, except to the law of Moses only, in regard of which, however, they frame no interpretations. These, then, are the opinions which also the Sadducees choose to teach. [Phil. 9.24]

PhilosopherJay · 10-20-2012, 01:25 AM

Hi stephan huller,

Quote:

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Quote:

21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:

22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

from Wikipedia, Bar Kochba Revolt:

Quote:

Multiple reasons have been offered for the beginning of the Bar Kokhba revolt. One interpretation is that in 130 CE, Emperor Hadrian visited the ruins of the temple. At first sympathetic towards the Jews, Hadrian promised to rebuild the temple, but the Jews felt betrayed when they found out that his intentions were to build a temple dedicated to Jupiter upon the ruins of the Second Temple.[5] A rabbinic version of this story claims that Hadrian was planning on rebuilding the Temple, but a malevolent Samaritan convinced him not to.

An additional legion, the VI Ferrata, was stationed in the province to maintain order, and the works commenced in 131 CE after the governor of Judaea, Tineius Rufus, performed the foundation ceremony of Aelia Capitolina, the city’s projected new name. "Ploughing up the Temple" was a religious offence that turned many Jews against the Roman authorities. The tensions grew higher when Hadrian abolished circumcision (brit milah), which he, a Hellenist, viewed as mutilation.[6] Subsequently, it is known that a Roman coin inscribed Aelia Capitolina was issued in 132, right with the revolt beginnings.
The Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva (alternatively Akiba) indulged the possibility that Simon Bar Kosiba (Bar Kokhba) could be the Jewish Messiah, and gave him the surname "Bar Kokhba" meaning "son of a star" in the Aramaic language, from the Star Prophecy verse from Numbers 24:17: "There shall come a star out of Jacob"

Josephus saw the First Jewish War as growing out of the reforms of the Fourth Philosophy. They were the ones who made the innovations.

The Bar Kochba Revolt was a traditionalist Jewish Revolt which didn't try to change any laws. It was against the New Roman Temple being built in Jerusalem.

While later writers may have attempted to link Daniel's 7 or 62 "weeks" prophecy to the time between Jesus' death and the first revolt, Mark does not apparently attempt to do so.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

The writer of Mark may have read or may even be loosely revising material from the 1st Century (my hypothesis). Correct usage does not assure that the writing was being done in the 1st Century.

But what is the most compelling argument for a second century attribution? As I see it chapter 13 has Jesus use Daniel 9:24 - 27 as a prophecy pertaining to the destruction of the Jewish temple. In all surviving interpretations of this prophetic utterance - among both Jews and Christians - it is connected with the first Jewish War. How on earth is this related to the second Jewish War. There was no temple, all reports about the conflict have the Jewish rebels as ignoring the traditional holiness of the Law. For instance Lamentations Rabba says that the rebels cut off their 'finger' instead of wearing tefillin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin). The story about the feeding of wafers and playing ball at Tur Simon cited in another recent thread is clearly similarly grounded - i.e. a rejection of traditional religious values.

One would expect a conservative religious backlash against the events of the bar Kochba revolt because it was certainly remembered as a rebellion fueled by religious novelties rather than traditional religious piety. How could antinomian Christianity have been inspired by a rejection of that revolt? This I have to hear.

Moreover I don't see how the bar Kochba revolt at all fits the traditional application of Daniel 9:24 - 27 which is also certainly a part of Mark's worldview. Indeed how could Jesus have emerged in 30 CE and prophesied about the 'end times' in the second century. Are you suggesting that the destruction of the temple in 70 CE had no theological significance in early Christianity? or that Mark wrote a narrative set twenty eight years before the actual destruction of the temple, planted many clues that Jesus originally said "I am able" or "I will destroy the temple" and applied this to a rebellion where there was no temple because it had already been destroyed at the culmination of the war of 66 - 70 CE.

I don't see how any of this is possible or even believable. The simple answer is that the tradition of the Church Fathers is right - the narrative was written in the first century, set twenty eight years before the destruction of the temple, and centrally concerned about Jesus's warning about the coming destruction of the temple 'caused' by the iniquity of the Jews.

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 06:54 AM

The problem with any Bar Kochba revolt hypothesis is that we have absolutely no reliable information about what caused the rebellion, what took place and how it ended. It is one of the strangest historical events on - or not on - record. I think there are more historical references to Jesus than this rebellion. To this end, those who argue for a link with the gospel are free to make whatever inferences they want because it is basically a tabla rasa.

My sense from the rabbinic literature is that the rebels abandoned traditional Jewish usage. But that in itself is not an argument for anything substantial or for that matter a link with Christianity (even though I privately am very supportive of that because I see tenuous evidence in favor of the presence of similar rituals).

But let's suppose that the Bar Kochba revolt was caused by an Imperial ban on circumcision (or castration) - how does this help the argument for identifying it as a Christian revolt or related to the gospel or early Christianity?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-17-2012, 01:51 PM	#65
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	spin, I am wondering where you got the idea that Herod 'imported' his high priests? Are you referencing his appointment of Hananel as High Priest, a Babylonian Jew of a high-priestly family?

10-17-2012, 08:40 PM	#67
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It's an interesting theory. I don't know that it proves the Sadducees disappeared. I know the Philosophumena claims that they settled near Mount Gerizim by third century.

10-20-2012, 06:54 AM	#70
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The problem with any Bar Kochba revolt hypothesis is that we have absolutely no reliable information about what caused the rebellion, what took place and how it ended. It is one of the strangest historical events on - or not on - record. I think there are more historical references to Jesus than this rebellion. To this end, those who argue for a link with the gospel are free to make whatever inferences they want because it is basically a tabla rasa. My sense from the rabbinic literature is that the rebels abandoned traditional Jewish usage. But that in itself is not an argument for anything substantial or for that matter a link with Christianity (even though I privately am very supportive of that because I see tenuous evidence in favor of the presence of similar rituals). But let's suppose that the Bar Kochba revolt was caused by an Imperial ban on circumcision (or castration) - how does this help the argument for identifying it as a Christian revolt or related to the gospel or early Christianity?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.